Return-Path: Received: from pop3.olsusa.com ([63.150.212.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.5) with ESMTP id 773462 for rob@logan.com; Fri, 04 May 2001 00:40:23 -0400 Received: from trixie.carlsonhome.com ([24.5.200.224]) by pop3.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71175U5500L550S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 3 May 2001 23:52:50 -0400 Received: from speed (192.168.0.5) by trixie.carlsonhome.com (Worldmail 1.3.167) for lancair.list@olsusa.com; 3 May 2001 20:59:29 -0700 From: "Jon Carlson" To: "Lancair. List@Olsusa. Com" Subject: RE: transition:ROP to LOP Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:59:29 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hi George (and anyone else who's knowledgeable), One thing that is not obvious to me is why LOP operation seems to be predicated on having a very balanced fuel/air mixture to all the cylinders, i.e. why are GAMIjectors necessary? Why can carburated or non-GAMI'd engines run ROP (presumably also with poor mixture distribution) but not LOP? What is it that causes them to run rougher LOP than ROP? Again, I'm presuming that they have poor mixture distribution in both cases, but it seems like they'd still get the advantages of LOP operation (better pressure peak timing, cooler temps, cleaner) if there weren't another factor involved causing the roughness. I'm obviously missing something. Thanks! -Jon C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>